Laughing Matters: The big bus theory

Given the number of emails I received, last week’s column about Santa Monica development or over-development, touched a nerve. Surprisingly, the emails were polite. You see I’ve experienced over the years of doing these columns that anger, often expressed rudely, is a great motivator. In this busy world, it takes energy to shoot off an email and being highly annoyed with me seems to be the ticket.

The current nerve being touched belongs to residents who feel our quality of life has been severely compromised in the name of tourism and business, causing considerable congestion and gridlock on our streets. The public’s reaction to the Hines Project passed by our City Council is obvious evidence of residents’ discontent. (An anti-development referendum has qualified for the November ballot so stay tuned.)

A few readers complained about the big red double-decker StarLine Tour busses that seem to be everywhere. They bring tourists staying at hotels in Hollywood and Downtown L.A. to the beach, the Promenade and Palisades Park and take visitors staying in Santa Monica hotels to famous landmarks in Hollywood and points east. Whenever I watch one of these giant busses lumber by, I suddenly feel like either I live in Disneyland or I’m a figure in the wax museum.

The busses, with their huge ads on the side, look like giant billboards on wheels. But, due to amazing technology, the tourists can see through the windows as if the ads weren’t there. (We should be so lucky.) To be fair, however, there are definite upsides to these busses, or so I’m told.

As embraced by the Chamber of Commerce, the theory of the double-deckers is the larger the bus the fewer the cars that pour in with tourists. Also, the busses are “hop on, hop off.” This means tourists can hop off to spend time shopping or exploring the sights, and then, at designated StarLine Bus Stops, get back on and visit other sights or return to their hotels.

Again due to technology, loud narration is a thing of the past as the StarLine busses are equipped with headsets that provide commentary available in 9 languages. (So essentially we can get their tourist dollars without even understanding their language or vice-versa.)

The headsets definitely beat a guy with a microphone, “And on your right is where mobster James ‘Whitey’ Bulger had $800,000 cash in his wall when he was arrested.” (Bugler update: Whitey received two consecutive life sentences plus five years and was ordered to pay restitution of $19.5 million, which sounds like a helluva lot of license plates.)

And yet I remember it fondly when the Loew’s Hotel first opened in Santa Monica in 1989. I was proud that a sophisticated hotel chain based in Manhattan thought so highly of our sleepy beach town. Only thereafter came Shutters, Casa Del Mar, Le Merigot, the Shore Hotel, the Viceroy and on and on. Soon my pride turned to, “Hey, enough already.”

My friend, Ron Accosta, an amateur Santa Monica historian having grown up in the Main Street neighborhood in the 1930’s and 40’s, is philosophical about all the changes, “You can’t fight the sunrise.” It somehow reminded me of Spencer Tracy, playing Clarence Darrow, in the classic movie “Inherit the Wind,” speaking about the tradeoffs of progress. “You can have a telephone but you lose privacy and the charm of distance.”

For example, I remember the outdoor mall in the 70’s and 80’s. To quote Bette Davis, “What a dump.” Then, also in 1989, came the Third Street Promenade and soon taxable sales in Santa Monica grew by 440%.

At first it was great. But now it’s often so mobbed you couldn’t pay me to go there. As Yogi Berra said of a restaurant that got too popular, “It’s so crowded nobody goes there anymore.”

So the battle lines seem drawn, quality of life vs. booming business. With rents skyrocketing along with property values, the middle class is being squeezed out. Children born and raised in Santa Monica can’t afford to live here. All the while tourists from every corner of the world flock here to enjoy our sun and surf, our shops, restaurants and nightlife.

They come to us on giant jet planes and travel our streets equipped with their credit cards, seated in giant busses wearing headsets that narrate the sights of our city in 9 languages. As I stand and watch I can only wonder what’s next. (Now that I think of it, I also wonder, with two consecutive life sentences, what was the point of giving Whitey the extra five years?)

To learn more about the StarLine double-decker bus tours go to Citysightseeingla.com. If he isn’t too busy “wondering” Jack can be reached at facebook.com/jackneworth, twitter.com/jackneworth or jnsmdp@aol.com.

Yes, tourist come first in Santa Monica… The City illegally converted 38 rent controlled units into a Hotel for tourist and for the bed tax. Who cares about the long term tenants and a man who has lived there 35 years who will lose his home. Now the city can pay it’s pensions with more tourist money.
Embassy Apartments to Palihouse Hotel Illegal Conversion Fact Sheet
By: Laura Wilson SM Resident and Renters Rights Activist
*The Embassy Apartment conversion to full-scale Palihouse Hotel in an R3 residential neighborhood of Santa Monica is illegal. This illegal Residential Apartment to HOTEL conversion sets a serious and dangerous precedence for residential land use and renters rights in Santa Monica.
*1927 The Embassy Apartments were built. The 1927 building permit is for a Multifamily Residential Apartment Building. The permit included the question: What type of business will operate in the building? The answer was: NONE. And at the time The Embassy was built in 1927 Property was zone residential, not commercial. Thus, the assertion it was originally built or operated, as a hotel is factually incorrect.
* The first 19 years of the Embassy’s existence it is listed in the phone book as an Apartment NOT a Hotel. Thus, the assertion it was originally built or operated, as a hotel is factually incorrect.
*1979 rent control is established and The Embassy owner’s, for the first time, attempt to assert Hotel Status in order to avoid registering its rental units and building as required under rent control laws. Prior to this time, the owner failed to make any attempt to legally operate as a Hotel. The Embassy owners had no hotel business license and never paid any Transient Occupancy Tax in the history of its 50 years of existence.
*April 24, 1980 the RCB denied the owner of The Embassy Apartments a Hotel Exemption based on the fact: The owner failed to provide evidence any units qualified as Hotel units. I am in contact with three tenants who spoke/testified at the hearing. Therefore, any use as a hotel after the 1980 denial was illegal as a violation of Rent Control laws.
*All 38 units were registered with rent control and paid fees as residential Apartments for 20 years.
*All recorded sales with the county records office of the property are for a Residential Multifamily Apartment House. The new owner recently had the parcel type changed to commercial but they purchased The Embassy as a Multifamily Residential building and parcel.
*The Embassy had NO business license to operate as a hotel until 2008 and in fact its business license was for residential use prior to that time.
*A 1992 independent review for California Park and Recreation identifies The Embassy as an Elegant Apartment Building used as Residential. There is NO mention of Hotel use.
In 1995 an overlay was created that grandfathered “Legally Existing Hotels” in the R3 zone in which The Embassy sits. There is no mention or inclusion of the Embassy in the staff report in support of the overlay. In fact, the report identifies the hotels in the overlay zone and the Embassy is not one of them. No notice was given to any property owners or tenants located near the Embassy. The overlay does not apply The Embassy because it never “legally existed or operated” as a Hotel. And, to this day in my opinion is illegal!
*There is evidence the Embassy was “illegally” renting a few units as hotel rooms. Done so without City authorization, a hotel business license or paying any Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) on and off for some years. This is in direct violation of the rent control laws after the Hotel Exemption was denied in 1980.
*In 1998 the City Planning Dept. sent the Embassy a letter to stop the use of residential units as Hotel rooms.
*In 1998 The Embassy Owners Attorney provide a statement that only 6 units were used for shot-term Hotel rentals in December 1994.
*In 2000 without public notice or a hearing the Embassy Owners and the City entered a settlement agreement. The 2000 agreement was the first step that slowly and illegally eroded away the residential status of the Embassy Apartments. The settlement included a provision to allow the illegal conversion of residential units. The compromise was 19 hotel units and 19 rent controlled units. The agreement included the Embassy owners NOT to Ellis the residential units. NOTE: I believe this agreement violated the Brown Act. Because, all meeting were held behind closed doors, and there was no public notice or due process as required by law.
*In 2003 the Embassy’s application to become a Historical Landmark it acknowledges its “Mixed Use” Character and argued the Embassy was primarily residential. And they supplied The State of California “HISTORIC RESOURCE INVETORY“ of the Embassy property. It was prepared in 1992 and identified the significance and evaluation of the Embassy property as an Elegant Apartment Building…..
The Attorney representing the Embassy included the following….
More particularly the interior of the Embassy generally consists of residential and guest unit corridors support spaces for the Embassy personnel and a lobby area that (unlike some hotel lobby areas) is not regularly open to the general public The Embassy lacks the type of public spaces commonly associated with hotels (as opposed to apartment hotels) such as restaurants banquet facilities, meeting rooms or a lobby that serves as a public gathering place. For the privacy of the Embassy’s Residents and guests, and in recognition of its mixed-use character as both a resident-serving and a visitor-serving facility the Embassy does not allow the general public access to any of its interior spaces.”
Thus, The Embassy abandoned all rights to run a full-scale hotel with a lobby lounge, restaurant, bar, and valet service. And, NEVER “legally” existed or operated as hotel!
*In 2008, the Embassy owners sued the City of Santa Monica to invalidate its 2000 settlement with the City so they could evict the tenants under the Ellis Act.
*In 2010 the court on appeal invalidated the 2000 agreement giving the Embassy Owners the right to Ellis the Building. The finding by the court did not give the City, or RCB the right disregard the SMCC laws in order to settle a lawsuit. And that is exactly what the City of Santa Monica and RCB did when they agreed to convert the Apartments into Hotel rooms.
*In 2011 in total disregard of SMCC zoning laws they entered into another settlement agreement that I believe is illegal. The 2011 agreement violates basic zoning laws to protect neighborhoods from illegal commercial hotel business expansion in residential zones. It’s my opinion…. The 2011 SA also violates the Brown Act as there was no public notice or hearing on the matter. Thus, no notice or due process as required by law.
The RCB failed to follow basic requirements for hotel exemptions under Chapter 12 of the RCB laws. And, no effective notice of this drastic change in use and mode of use of the property were given to the surrounding residents or property owners. RCB denied the Hotel Exemption in 1980, the Owners failed to appeal the decision. Thus, any use as a Hotel after 1980 is illegal and the RCB’s later exemption violates it’s own charter.
*2013 The City now claims Embassy conversion to a Palihouse Hotel is a “permitted use” that can expand and intensify its operation, with Valet car service on our public street, a restaurant café / bar for patrons and their guest. Effectively, destroying the peace quiet and enjoyment of the R3 neighborhood and eroding all SMRR has done for Renters Rights.

The illegal conversion of the Embassy Apartments cannot be ignored. Respecting our City zoning laws and protecting Renters Rights is the just and right thing to do. The City claims the Sovereign Apartments at 2nd & Washington is a Hotel? Are residents in that building going to lose their homes Next?

Advertisement

Search…

Get the latest issue

Subscribe to our Newsletter

To subscribe to our dandy newsletter simply add your email below. A confirmation email will be sent to you!